The IPKat

Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

Questionable Trade Marks: Squeezing Blood from the USPTO?

A Katfriend has sent the IP Kat a tip about a US-based law
firm that specializes in debt collections.That firm, Cook Collections Attorneys, uses the mark
squeezebloodfromturnip.com, a reference, presumably, to its level of success.

Can you squeeze blood from a turnip? At least onedebt collector thinks so

Says our tipster, who will remain anonymous: “Apparently
in hopes of attracting clients yearning to go beyond what is reasonable to
collect, collections attorney David Cook trade marked the term ‘SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com.’
He obtained the trade mark in 2007 by claiming to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that he was going to use the phrase for ‘Clothing, namely, t-shirts,’
but he instead mostly uses it for his firm's website, email addresses and stationary.I am among many who find a collection attorney's use of the phrase SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com
to be ‘threatening, offensive, disparaging, and immoral or scandalous.’”The Lanham Act, which codifies US trade mark law, sets forth the various reasons why a mark will not be accepted for trade mark protection, including a mark which "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter."

A debt collection attorney’s use of the mark “SqueezeBloodFromTurnip”
in connection with debt collection practices may seem unsavory, and, perhaps,
disrespectful to the debtors, who are not necessarily bad apples (pun
intended). However, this Kat doesn’t
think it rises to the level of immoral, deceptive or scandalous.Rather, this Kat views the mark more as
a form of marketing puffery – proclaiming to potential clients that Cook can recover
assets that the debtor would otherwise have been unable to pay.But, as the saying goes, you truly cannot
squeeze blood from a turnip, try as Cook might.As long as Cook adheres to the legal obligations of debt collectors
pursuant to the US Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and applicable state laws and regulations, Cook likely will not be able to achieve
a better result than another equally qualified and experienced collection attorney.

Mott's For Tots butnot yet for babies

What this Kat found more
intriguing than Mr Cook's use of SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com is that Cook has apparently secured registered trade marks in the
marks Cook, Cook Collection Attorneys and Cook
Legal Services .In the US, a mark
based primarily on a common surname cannot be trade marked unless it has
achieved secondary meaning in the minds of consumers (think: McDonald’s and
Heinz).Cook is a relatively common
surname in the US.Indeed, it is the 60th
most common surname in the country.As such, it is surprising that the USPTO
allowed the Cook marks to be registered as trade marks, especially since the USPTO
recently rejected an application by Mott’s, arguably one of the most well-known applesauce and apple
juice brands in the US.In that case, Mott’s
applied for a trade mark for use in connection with baby foods, a product category
in which it had not previously sold products.Despite the high consumer recognition of the Mott’s brand name in
connection with apple-based products, the USPTO rejected
the baby food application on the grounds that Mott’s is primarily surname, and "not a rare" one. Thus it was ineligible to be registered as a trademark in the absence of acquired distinctiveness. [Notes Merpel, Mott doesn't even crack the top 1000 most common US surnames.]Most likely, the USPTO decision (which was
subsequently upheld by the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) was due to the fact that Mott’s had filed its
baby food trade mark application on an intent-to-use basis prior to actually
using the mark in commerce.Mott’s was
thus unable to show acquired distinctiveness in the category of baby foods, and
it failed to link the application to its distinctive and established trade
marks, including a registered Mott's For Tots mark, in other food and beverage categories.

In contrast, Cook appears to have filed his trade mark
applications for Cook, Cook Collection Attorneys and Cook Legal Services after he had already
begun using those marks in commerce. He
submitted evidence of his use (e.g. advertisements for his legal services under
the name Cook Collection Attorneys)
to the USPTO, and (as far as this Kat can tell) the USPTO appears to have
accepted this evidence without further investigation.Still, given the popularity of the surname
Cook, it seems odd that Cook was so easily able to register trade marks featuring
his surname. In addition, Cook Collection Attorneys and Cook Legal Services seemingly also could have been challenged because the marks are merely descriptive of the services in connection with which the mark is used.The USPTO often
investigates or requests that an applicant submit further evidence of acquired
distinctiveness in connection with applications claiming exclusive use of a
relatively weak, descriptive or potentially unregistrable mark.Would any readers care to share their
thoughts on why the USPTO might not have questioned or rejected Cook’s applications
during its review period of these marks?The Kitchen Cat here and hereMerpel does not suggest putting the words Cook and Cat together in a single search query...

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.